Cultishness...

[_maklelan]

Doctrinal issues that place such great importance on a person's ancestry, perceived both positive and negative. If course, that would unravel the core of Mormon doctrine.

I'm afraid you're being to oblique. What issue, specifically, are you talking about? The curse of Cain? Some Mormon pedigree elitism? Lamanite ancestry?

[Guest]

You nailed it. Home run.

Yes, Native ancestry is part of it, too, for me. Multiple stigmas to the Mormon mind.

[_Buffalo]

Not spiritually damaging. Psychologically, socially, or physically damaging.

I would describe the NRM according to the specific kind of damage I considered they inflicted. The notion that "cult" encapsulates all of this is part of the pseudo-scientific perspective that was thoroughly debunked by psychiatrists back in the 90s. If you insist that the different "cults" represent different kinds of damaging influences, wouldn't more precise nomenclature be rather important? Again, you appear to be telling me that you really want a word that has that rhetorical sting, irrespective of its semantic accuracy. This is the kind of bigotry and bias that scholarship and other fair-minded people seek to avoid.

How does one debunk a word? I think you're overplaying your hand here. Language is fluid and symbolic. One can debunk a theory, but not a word.

Can you explain how accurately labeling dysfunctional social groups amounts to bigotry?

[_maklelan]

You nailed it.

Yes, Native ancestry is part of it, too, for me. Multiple stigmas to the Mormon mind.

Yes, the church has not been particularly kind to Native Americans from an institutional point of view, but this is hardly unique among American institutions, or indicative of subversiveness. I'd like to see quite a few corrections made in that regard, though. A friend of mine did some honors research related to those interactions.

[_Yoda]

Unfortunately, I have seen the type of treatment you are referring to. It does exist. When my family and I lived in Utah, there was a lovely family who rented the house next door to us. I believe they later bought the home. They were the neatest couple. We did lots of things with them...had dinners together, watched movies. Our girls were the same age. The couple was Catholic, and they had received horrible treatment from the majority of LDS members in our area. I was sickened. Apparently, they had actually been denied an apartment to rent because the landlords didn't want non-members in their complex. So much for missionary work, and acceptance of others? The only reason I believe that they didn't pursue a lawsuit, since what happened was obviously illegal, is that they found the house, and were very happy with it.

I do not regret leaving Utah at all. The eight years I lived there almost completely destroyed my testimony. I am ashamed to be associated with that group.

I have seen this kind of thing happen before, and I agree that it seems to be more prevalent in Utah, but I disagree that this says something about the subversiveness of the institution, especially when the institution itself consistently and vehemently condemns such behavior and the vast majority of the members would never dream of engaging in such rank bigotry. This isn't something that the institution secretly condones, or that is tucked between the lines of the doctrine, or that is the inevitable product of the Mormon worldview or its logic.

I think, though, that there is a reason this attitude is prevelant in Utah, and, in MCB's case, Nauvoo. The "old line" Mormons hold a lot of resentment toward the treatment of the saints, and murder of Joseph Smith, what happened at Winter Quarters, etc. It was even part of the temple ceremony to avenge the death of the prophet for a while.

Although the modern Church does not condone this kind of behavior, there are deep roots in how this behavior originated. And it is an ugly past. I think that we, as members, should be honest in the way we deal with it.

[_Yoda]

Please understand that I am not dismissing the suffering of the Saints at Winter Quarters, nor condoning the murder of the prophet and his brothers. However, holding grudges against the relatives of those who performed these autrocities is rather pointless.

[_maklelan]

How does one debunk a word?

You're starting to derail, which means you're getting desperate. I didn't say the word was debunked, I said the notion that "cults" inflicted all those kinds of harm was debunked.

I think you're overplaying your hand here. Language is fluid and symbolic. One can debunk a theory, but not a word.

Can you explain how accurately labeling dysfunctional social groups amounts to bigotry?

It's not the labeling, it's the presumption of dysfunction and the accusations of institution equality with violent and otherwise harmful groups. You can't show that most of the groups labeled "cults" by the anti-cult or counter-cult movements are actually dysfunctional or harmful, you're just grouping them together based on nominal similarities that have been rather arbitrarily declared to be necessary and sufficient features for inclusion in the category. The research actually shows the opposite. You're not interested in what the research shows, though, you're interested in whatever rhetorical means you can conjure up to validate your worldview.

[_Buffalo]

You're starting to derail, which means you're getting desperate. I didn't say the word was debunked, I said the notion that "cults" inflicted all those kinds of harm was debunked.

On the contrary, I think internet psychoanalysis is a sign of desperation.

Can you be more specific? Are you saying the notion that religious groups can cause harm is a notion that has been debunked?

It's not the labeling, it's the presumption of dysfunction and the accusations of institution equality with violent and otherwise harmful groups. You can't show that most of the groups labeled "cults" by the anti-cult or counter-cult movements are actually dysfunctional or harmful, you're just grouping them together based on nominal similarities that have been rather arbitrarily declared to be necessary and sufficient features for inclusion in the category. The research actually shows the opposite. You're not interested in what the research shows, though, you're interested in whatever rhetorical means you can conjure up to validate your worldview.

Which counter-cult movement? Those who focused on heresy or those who focused on dysfunction? Are you claiming that it would be impossible to demonstrate, for example, that the LDS church causes significant harm to its members? Has it been attempted?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Not really, no. They obviously largely have Mormonism filtered through an antagonistic lens, though. For instance, the part in the song from The Book of Mormon that mentions Kolob as a planet obviously repeats a stale anti-Mormon misunderstanding, rather than an esoteric early Mormon reading of the Book of Abraham. At the same time, they try to be sympathetic where others do not. I don't see them as anti-Mormon, I see them as outsiders trying to entertain based on their perception.

Well, then, my point holds up: you have no evidence that the "antagonism" has its basis in counter-cult materials.

I kind of suspect that you are wanting to create some kind of "counter-cult" bogeyman to account for negative opinion of LDS.

Not at all. I acknowledge that negative opinions can arise independent of any anti-Mormonism, but those kinds of opinions very rarely turn into sustained and vocal antagonism. Opponents of Prop 8, for instance, have a legitimate gripe. When that opposition grows into calling them a cult because they believe in X, Y, and Z non-Christian doctrine in addition to opposing gay marriage, it's obvious anti-cult socialization is supplementing their antagonism.

You're starting to blend your criticisms and observations, and the second half of your comment here is poorly supported. It's not "obvious." It's possible.

I think part of the problem has to do with the fact that pretty much anyone who leaves the Church is branded an "apostate," and virtually anyone who is critical is labeled an "anti-Mormon."

I.e., that if "normal folks" just knew the "real story" about Latter-day Saints from the Church itself, that there would never be any negative opinions.

I don't believe that at all, although I am not surprised that you would immediately defer to that stereotype. You've never paid attention to what I've said, or bothered to acknowledge that I'm an independent and thinking adult, rather than some drone.

Lol. Where on earth is this coming from?

I don't think that people need to read the Tanners or James White or RfM to form an opinion on whether or not Mormonism is "subversive."

Of course not. It's so obvious that they're subversive.

"They"? Or "it"?

Heck, the guy who founded RfM says that he wound up leaving based solely on reading Church-approved material.

Really? In this video he explains that when they were "doubting" and "questioning" and "reading" they found ex-Mormons and ex-Jehovah's Witnesses who helped them understand that they were not alone, but were "normal people coming out of a cult." As has been pointed out many times, while people leave for many different reasons, they generally only become antagonistic and appeal to stereotypical anti-cult ideologies or characterizations when their exit is somehow guided or influenced by anti-cult socialization.

Careful with that lumping! Yes: I agree that, when people "appeal to stereotypical anti-cult ideologies or characterization" that they've likely been influenced by (drum roll....) anti-cult socialization. But I don't agree that this is the only reason for antagonism--even in a "general" sense. One of the things you seem to be glossing over w/r/t to the Lewis article is the fact that he's focusing specifically on people who underwent "deprogramming." That process, I think you'll agree, is vastly different from, say, what the RfM guy describes.

This is what Bromley's research is about: the exit stories are constructed based on the social position of the group in relation to the leave-taker. What would have happened had they left the church without ever discovering an entire subculture where their perspective on the church served as social capital?

Again: I think you're misunderstanding the way that Bromley (and Lewis, for that matter) are saying about the relationship between the NRMs and the larger society. Reread Lewis's "Discussion" section, where he describes the ways that apostates function within what he calls the "cognitive perspective of the dominant culture" (394). Like I said: the fuel for "apostate anger" doesn't come strictly from counter-cult materials, as you seem to think it does. Both Bromley and Lewis indicate that the "environment" or the "dominant culture" or "social position" play a role in the whole process.

So, when you ask, "What would have happened...without discovering an entire subculture..." I think you're trying to narrow down the issue too much. The perspective on the Church has "social capital" not just in anti-cult circles (like CARM), but in the "dominant culture" as well. For whatever reason, you seem really resistant to this basic point.

Further, if you object to something like, say, Blood Atonement or polygamy, does it really matter whether you read it at a "counter-cult" Web site, or whether you learned about it from Rough Stone Rolling (or whatever)?

It matters in terms of how antagonistic and public you are about your experience. Did you really not read any of the Lewis article?

Lewis's empirical research, as I said at the outset, is rather limited. He's talking about one specific NRM, and he's dealing with people who underwent "deprogramming," and not necessarily people who are antagonistic--public or otherwise--towards Mormonism. Heck, you yourself admitted pretty early on in this discussion that Mormonism doesn't seem like the groups that are frequently discussed in the scholarship.

I never said they were "objectively subversive."

You tried to insist that Bromley was declaring these groups subversive, and declaring Mormonism at least partially subversive. He's doing no such thing.

Again: where would you place Mormonism within Bromley's paradigm? Does the dominant culture view Mormonism in a totally hunky-dory kind of way? Or is there still a lingering suspicion and tension? Do Mormon apostates still fulfill the kind of social roles that Lewis mentions towards the end of his article?

[_MCB]

IMHO, places like CARM have some characteristics of a cult, based on what I have seen. "Judge not lest you be judged."